[PRE REVIEW]: The thermal data analyzer

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Tom-Kon<!--end-author-handle-- (Tom Konings) Repository: https://github.com/Tom-Kon/thermaldata-analyzer.git Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: Pending Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Kevin M. Moerman

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de57b1d4515a0ad05927c772003ed65c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de57b1d4515a0ad05927c772003ed65c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de57b1d4515a0ad05927c772003ed65c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/de57b1d4515a0ad05927c772003ed65c)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @TomK. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@TomK if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.01 s (372.5 files/s, 166885.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                                1            158            119           1339
TeX                              1              6              0             73
Markdown                         2             29              0             68
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             4            193            119           1480
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    58  Tom-Kon
     3  jbanderka
     2  jbandera

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.jaap.2020.104840 is OK
- 10.1080/1061186X.2023.2300690 is OK
- 10.1007/s10973-022-11762-1 is OK
- 10.3390/pharmaceutics12100959 is OK
- 10.1016/j.addr.2011.12.002 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: TRIOS software

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 845

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[TomK]

@Tom-Kon - looks like this was mis-tagged

[Tom-Kon]

Hi @TomK ,

I tried to look through the error message and your comment but I really have no idea how to fix this (sorry; I'm a little inexperienced with this). Could you give some further directions on what I should do?

Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks a lot! Tom

[TomK]

@Tom-Kon i meant i've been tagged as the author and not yourself. I'd recommend checking wherever you submitted the paper (joss.theoj.org?) and see if you can edit the submission and correct the Github username to Tom-Kon instead of TomK

[Tom-Kon]

@TomK right okay I see haha. All the other info including the orcid-ID and stuff are correct so it's quite peculiar. I'll see what I can do. Thanks!

[editorialbot]

Hello @Tom-Kon, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[Tom-Kon]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @Tom-Kon, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[Tom-Kon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.

[Tom-Kon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@openjournals/dev can you check how this happened? The proper author github handle is @Tom-Kon which the editor dashboard also shows.

[Tom-Kon]

Hey @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman , I think it may have been my bad. When the issue was pointed out by Tom (the wrongly tagged author), I changed the git handle to try and fix it (to see if it would update). I don't recall filling in the wrong handle, but that may have been my bad to be honest.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Tom-Kon okay. I think we'll be able to fix it. I just updated the author listed at the top here.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Tom-Kon thanks for this submission. I am the AEiC on this track and here to help with initial steps. I am currently reviewing if this work is in scope for JOSS. In particular given the relatively small size and narrow functionality of the project I've just flagged this for scope review by our board, to see this conforms to our substantial scholarly effort criteria. This scope review should take about 2 weeks to complete.

Since this is a web-tool, can you clarify what portion of the code was generated by a site/gui creation tool and what proportion was truly your original work?

In addition I am worried this work may be too immature for JOSS (project appears <2 months old, no history of issues/pull requests, the project appears to lack: dedicated documentation, automated testing and instructions for testing).

[Tom-Kon]

Hey @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman ,

Thank for your message and for fixing the author issue! Let me clarify a few things.

1. It is a web-tool, but all of the code that you see has been written by me (and/or by Julia, the co-author). This includes the CSS/HTML styling etc. The main work here was the writing and styling of the tutorial. All of the responsive user interface was also written by me (although some hints were given by chatGPT when I got stuck, I always got through the issue myself or with Julia's help). Should I acknowledge chatGPT for this? It never really fixed anything so I wasn't sure.

2. The project is much older than it seems. I started working on it in December, but I only did so locally since I didn't have much coding experience. I first got the basics done but then figured it might actually be super useful for colleagues that also use TRIOS. That's when the whole user interface idea came, etc. I only thought of publishing it much later, and that's why it was uploaded to github so late. I'd already spent many hours before uploading it, it has been reviewed by some colleagues, by our PI etc. I don't really know how I can prove these statements in any other way... I have some old versions from February that I can upload if you want, but I'm not sure I kept any older versions than that.

Thanks! Tom

[Tom-Kon]

I just thought of this as well: there is documentation but it's actually inside of the UI. I can just copy it to a folder in github if I should. I don't really know how to set up automated testing, but there are some example files in github that you can run with the app, as well as example outputs that you're supposed to obtain. This is also specified in the readme - I thought this covered the testing requirement, but please say so if I should add some stuff here :)

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Tom-Kon the editorial board has concluded the scope review. Unfortunately this work is not deemed in scope as it stands as it is considered too minor in terms of LOC and functionality offered. Furthermore, some concerns were raised on the "packaging" of the software, e.g. on the modularity (since most functionality appears to be contained in a single file), as well as on full testing which appears to be lacking.

We will now proceed to reject this submission. Note though that this conclusion does not mean the work is not useful or of a poor quality, it merely means that as it stands it does not conform to our substantial scholarly effort criteria.

We do hope you'll consider JOSS for any future (re)submissions of a more substantial magnitude. Note also that you could consider ZENODO as a means to enable citation of your software instead.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot reject

[editorialbot]

Paper rejected.

[Tom-Kon]

Hi @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman,

Unfortunate, but thanks for your response. I'm already working on some extensions currently. I'll see how far I get, but I might resubmit a more complete and larger package one day. I'll also fix the modularity in the future - I didn't know this was a potential issue :).

One question that remains is the testing. I did test everything by running the data analysis that the code does manually. I don't really see what else I can do to test it - do you perhaps have any suggestions?

Thanks and kind regards, Tom